linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] modules: allow modprobe load regular elf binaries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180310151652.GV4449@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:16:52 +0000
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] modules: allow modprobe load regular elf
 binaries

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 02:08:43PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The alternative to this would be a simple equivalent of try_then_request_module()
> for UMH modules: try_umhm_then_request_umh_module() or whatever. So just as I
> argued earlier over UMH limitations, this is not the end of the world for umh
> modules, and it doesn't mean you can't get *properly* add umh modules upstream,
> it would *just mean* we'd be perpetuating today's (IMHO) horrible and loose
> semantics.

I was about to suggest that perhaps a try_umhm_then_request_umh_module() or
whatever should not be a macro -- but instead an actual routine, and we don't
export say the simple form to avoid non-deterministic uses of it from the
start... but the thing is *it'd have to be a macro* given that the *check* for
the module *has to be loose*, just as try_then_request_module()...

*Ugh* gross.

Another reason for me to want an actual deterministic clean proper solution
from the start.

  Luis